The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll

Dean wrote: Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin...

How was Italy, can you post the holiday snaps ?

On a more serious note, it seems that the humanoid critter is unique from the other animals in that he is the only one who knows he's gonna die. Dealing with our own mortality has probably been pivotal to some of the many frankly preposterous ideas I have seen propagated in this thread e.g. immortality, transcendental agents, original sin, resurrection, miracles, Satan, speaking in tongues, eternal values etc

Religion does not have 'the ace in the hole' on morality. It has certainly served us well in the past as a valuable framework upon which a moral compass can be traced in the pursuance of communal altruistic goals. I would also concede that in considerably more ancient and less sophisticated societies than we have now, it could very well have been the sort of deterrent for acts of  barbarism perpetrated by those amongst its citizens who not believing, felt they could act with impunity. However, reading some of the mystics hereabouts we would be led to believe that the entire socio-ethical global world order would collapse into random and indiscriminate carnage if secular values are allowed to hold sway. Just because atheism has no common reference point to base any morality does not imply that nihilistic chaos must follow. We cannot be expected to legislate for the acts of the clinically insane.

BTW let's not continue to quote the mentally ill as if their deranged testimony could prove or disprove anything OK ? e.g. Hitler was a vegetarian, so let's napalm greengrocers and beat our plants senseless etc

It also seems clear to me that morality is an organic and ever changing 'thang' constantly in flux e.g. the sorts of mystical visions, utterances and revelations that inspired quivering awe thousands of years ago are now considered sufficient to have the sufferer locked up and sedated. Similarly, yer average upwardly mobile white collar/toga Roman citizen liked nothing better of a damp Thursday night to seek sophisticated entertainment in the shape of helpless people being eaten alive by wild animals/butchered by gladiators.
Although neither of the foregoing is condoned by any scriptures it should be evident that moral values have a 'sell by' date (and ain't it funny how the jurisprudence upon which we build our modern legal concepts in the west is based on that of  Ancient Rome ? - the architects of our man-made moral compass).

Despite the rabid indignation of those posters who insist on an either/or monochrome set of rules to countenance their behaviour, I like to think we have moved significantly forward in the interim and continue the never-ending task of distinguishing the millions of subtle coloured hues of ethics that face us.

"By the way, I actually stomp cockroaches"

Not to Hijack the thread (Mike will call a "theist trick" ), but I had a little rowboat that laid upside down in my yard next to the garage for a couple of years and when I lifted it up one day....

Edited by Trademark - December 28 2009 at 22:37

Trademark wrote: Not to Hijack the thread (Mike will call a "theist trick" ), but I had a little rowboat that laid upside down in my yard next to the garage for a couple of years and when I lifted it up one day.... Cockroach metropolis.  Someone screamed like a little girl, couldn't have been me though.

Would I? Somehow I fail to see a connection between Theism and cockroaches. It's simply off-topic, which I don't mind to a certain degree, on the 27th page of a poll thread.

BTW: I've never blown up frogs or indeed killed any animal for fun ... and I think that someone who takes pleasure in that as a child is either severely mislead in thinking that those creatures feel no pain or suffering (religion can do that, based on the theory that only human beings have a soul), or is indeed a sociopath (not capable of feeling empathy).


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 29 2009 at 03:38

Epignosis wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Dean wrote: Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin... How was Italy, can you post the holiday snaps ? You slay me with your irreverent humo(u)r!

Italy was okay, Rome was great - Sicily was even better - holiday snaps of the latter were posted in the Grey Room and Rogues Gallery.  ..  ...

ExittheLemming wrote: On a more serious note, it seems that the humanoid critter is unique from the other animals in that he is the only one who knows he's gonna die. Dealing with our own mortality has probably been pivotal to some of the many frankly preposterous ideas I have seen propagated in this thread e.g. immortality, transcendental agents, original sin, resurrection, miracles, Satan, speaking in tongues, eternal values etc Religion does not have 'the ace in the hole' on morality. It has certainly served us well in the past as a valuable framework upon which a moral compass can be traced in the pursuance of communal altruistic goals. I would also concede that in considerably more ancient and less sophisticated societies than we have now, it could very well have been the sort of deterrent for acts of  barbarism perpetrated by those amongst its citizens who not believing, felt they could act with impunity. However, reading some of the mystics hereabouts we would be led to believe that the entire socio-ethical global world order would collapse into random and indiscriminate carnage if secular values are allowed to hold sway. Just because atheism has no common reference point to base any morality does not imply that nihilistic chaos must follow. We cannot be expected to legislate for the acts of the clinically insane. BTW let's not continue to quote the mentally ill as if their deranged testimony could prove or disprove anything OK ? e.g. Hitler was a vegetarian, so let's napalm greengrocers and beat our plants senseless etc It also seems clear to me that morality is an organic and ever changing 'thang' constantly in flux e.g. the sorts of mystical visions, utterances and revelations that inspired quivering awe thousands of years ago are now considered sufficient to have the sufferer locked up and sedated. Similarly, yer average upwardly mobile white collar/toga Roman citizen liked nothing better of a damp Thursday night to seek sophisticated entertainment in the shape of helpless people being eaten alive by wild animals/butchered by gladiators. Although neither of the foregoing is condoned by any scriptures it should be evident that moral values have a 'sell by' date (and ain't it funny how the jurisprudence upon which we build our modern legal concepts in the west is based on that of  Ancient Rome ? - the architects of our man-made moral compass). Despite the rabid indignation of those posters who insist on an either/or monochrome set of rules to countenance their behaviour, I like to think we have moved significantly forward in the interim and continue the never-ending task of distinguishing the millions of subtle coloured hues of ethics that face us.

Nothing to add to that, except

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Nor would I claim there is no natural basis for us not to kill.  We generally need other people, true enough?  I'm not saying any of that.  I'm saying we like violence so long as it isn't too close to home.  We like the bogeyman so long as he's not in our closet.  In other words, that's not the same thing as saying we have a "natural repulsion."  I don't believe we do.  We like car wrecks, earthquakes, 9-11s, robbed 7-11s, and Hannibal Lecter- so long as its NIMBY. You are increasing the distance between act and spectator and thus creating an emotional detachment, which makes what you are saying irrelevant. Football fans can only enjoy watching the match on TV because there is an emotional attachment to the team - the average disinterested viewer will find the whole event boring - yet take them to the stadium and the effect is different. I have no interest in baseball, what I have seen on TV is dull and I have not cultural reference point to this game at all, but while I was in the US some friends took be to the ballpark to see a game - it was fun - without any physical attachment to either team I found my self rooting for the home team. This is an extreme example perhaps, but no sporting event on TV matches the thrill and excitement of being there. And by that any event seen from a distance is not the same as being there - there may be some emotional connection, but not at the same intensity. So, yes NIMBY does play its part and that's the whole point I was making about seeing Saw on DVD and physically being in the room with the person and a saw.   We like to be scared because it produces a chemical release - we get an adrenaline-rush and increased heat-rate to prepare the body for running-away from the bogeyman - since the bogeyman isn't going to leap out of the TV screen then we only do it for the chemistry...

Again, I do not think the evidence supports what you are saying.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Nor would I claim there is no natural basis for us not to kill.  We generally need other people, true enough?  I'm not saying any of that.  I'm saying we like violence so long as it isn't too close to home.  We like the bogeyman so long as he's not in our closet.  In other words, that's not the same thing as saying we have a "natural repulsion."  I don't believe we do.  We like car wrecks, earthquakes, 9-11s, robbed 7-11s, and Hannibal Lecter- so long as its NIMBY. You are increasing the distance between act and spectator and thus creating an emotional detachment, which makes what you are saying irrelevant. Football fans can only enjoy watching the match on TV because there is an emotional attachment to the team - the average disinterested viewer will find the whole event boring - yet take them to the stadium and the effect is different. I have no interest in baseball, what I have seen on TV is dull and I have not cultural reference point to this game at all, but while I was in the US some friends took be to the ballpark to see a game - it was fun - without any physical attachment to either team I found my self rooting for the home team. This is an extreme example perhaps, but no sporting event on TV matches the thrill and excitement of being there. And by that any event seen from a distance is not the same as being there - there may be some emotional connection, but not at the same intensity. So, yes NIMBY does play its part and that's the whole point I was making about seeing Saw on DVD and physically being in the room with the person and a saw.   We like to be scared because it produces a chemical release - we get an adrenaline-rush and increased heat-rate to prepare the body for running-away from the bogeyman - since the bogeyman isn't going to leap out of the TV screen then we only do it for the chemistry... Again, I do not think the evidence supports what you are saying. How so?

Even when put in a position to inflict serious injury on other human beings- even told they could stop- most people still choose to inflict pain despite their upbringing, sense of morals, or whatever sense of non-violence evolution may have imparted to them.

This study tells me that not only do many people like seeing others suffer (even physically), many people are willing to serve as the cause of others suffering.

The Milgrim Experiment is probably as close as we will get to demonstrating this within the confines of ethical psychology.

Epignosis wrote: Even when put in a position to inflict serious injury on other human beings- even told they could stop- most people still choose to inflict pain despite their upbringing, sense of morals, or whatever sense of non-violence evolution may have imparted to them. This study tells me that not only do many people like seeing others suffer (even physically), many people are willing to serve as the cause of others suffering. The Milgrim Experiment is probably as close as we will get to demonstrating this within the confines of ethical psychology.

Edited by Dean - December 29 2009 at 06:20

Mr ProgFreak wrote: And if you could do the same ... sum up your position clearly and consistently, maybe I could understand it. I'm really interested!

Without offering evidence for any of my claims, here's my position on certain issues in a nutshell as of today:

1. The Bible is the Word of God.  This means that our understanding of who we are, the purpose of the world, the nature of God, the status of Israel, and most importantly, the person and work of Jesus Christ comes from this.  When people make claims about Christianity or any related subject, I compare what they say to the Bible.

              a) In order for the Bible to be properly understood, we (21st century Westerners) must make an effort to read passages using proper hermeneutic tools rather than take verses out of historical/linguistic/cultural context for our own ends and aims.

2. Only this is necessary for salvation (and therefore, the claim of being a Christian): Repent of your sins (that doesn't mean you stop "sinning..." again two concepts there blurred by one English word) and believe that Jesus Christ is God's Son, that he died for the sin of the world (thereby purchasing it by his blood), that you belong to him, and that he will make you righteous before God. 

     a) Obedience to Christ's commands is a sign of salvation, not a cause.

     b) This means that a person can actually be a polytheist, believe in extraterrestrials, ghosts, not believe in ghosts or extraterrestrials, etc., and still be saved.  There are essentials that must be believed in in order for salvation (see 2), and there are essentials that must be true (whether they are believed or not) in order for salvation as the Bible states it to be true (I won't go into the latter here unless someone is really interested).

3. God is the creator of the universe, and is sovereign over it. 

     a) God is a physical being but

     b) God exists on a higher dimension than we do; thereby His work in this world is seen as supernatural when in fact it breaks no scientific law.  In fact, I don't think many of the miracles in the Bible even required His intervention.  God's extra-dimensionality enables Him to "be close" to His creation without being seen, seen our inward parts at the same time as our outward parts, and do things we would consider "miraculous."

     c) God is rich in grace and forgiveness, but also will pour out wrath upon those who continually reject Him and establish themselves as His enemies.

4. Everything that meaningfully exists does so physically.

5. Determinism is true.  We can only meaningfully have freewill if we are mechanically determined (per Dennett's Freedom Evolves).

6. Faith is not blind belief, but belief based on evidence.

7. After death, people remain dead until the resurrection, at which point believers will inherit eternal life and inherit the new world with Christ.

     a) Nonbelievers are destroyed, but not tortured for all eternity.

8. All people are born in sin.

9.  Jesus Christ is God's Son and the centerpiece of the universe.  Everything was made for him.  He is the only man to have not been tainted by sin and therefore the only one qualified to be a sufficient savior.

10. Once a person is genuinely saved, he cannot lose his salvation.


___________


Eh...I'll stop there so I don't run the risk of being long-winded.  If there's anything you want clarification on just ask.

Just know that this list is not exhaustive of what I think.